Public Opinion of Forestry 2015, Wales

Release date: 25 June 2015 Coverage: Wales Geographical breakdown: None

Issued by: Economics & Statistics, Forestry Commission, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT Enquiries: Jackie Watson 0300 067 5238 statistics@forestry.gsi.gov.uk Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236 Website: www.forestry.gov.uk/statistics Contents

Introduction 3 Key findings 4 Benefits and disadvantages of woodlands 5 Benefits and disadvantages of street trees 7 Woodland recreation 9 Community engagement 16 Awareness of logos 19 Tree health 20 Wood as a fuel 22 Disabilities/ health problems 25 Annex 27 Introduction

The Forestry Commission has conducted biennial surveys of public attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues since 1995. These surveys are used to inform and monitor policy development.

This publication presents results for Wales from the Welsh Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015 on:

- Benefits and disadvantages of woodlands;
- Benefits and disadvantages of street trees;
- Woodland recreation;
- Community engagement;
- Awareness of logos;
- Tree health;
- Wood as a fuel; and
- Disabilities/ health problems.

A copy of the questionnaire used in this survey, giving complete wording of questions and response options, is provided in the Annex at the end of this report.

Surveys have also been run across the UK (to provide results for the UK and for England) and in Scotland. Separate reports, providing results from these surveys, are available at www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-5zyl9w.

Results from the 2015 survey are published for the first time in this release. Figures for earlier years have not been revised from those previously released. For further details, see the Revisions section of the Annex.

As the data are obtained from a sample survey, there is a range of uncertainty (confidence interval) associated with any results produced. Any differences referred to in the text are statistically significant at the 95 per cent confidence level unless otherwise stated. For further details, see the Data Sources and Methodology and the Quality sections of the Annex. Key findings

In 2015:

- **94%** of respondents believed the woodlands near them provide at least one benefit for the local community. Around **two fifths** (38%) believed that there was at least one woodland-related issue that disadvantaged the local community.

- **91%** of respondents believed street trees provide at least one benefit for the local urban area. Over **one half** (58%) believed that there was at least one disadvantage. The most commonly identified benefit of street trees was that they make the local urban area look more attractive (71%).

- Almost **two thirds** of respondents have visited forests or woodlands in the last 12 months. Of these, around **nine out of ten** would visit again and would recommend the woodland/forest to a friend or relative.

- Around **two thirds** (64%) of respondents said there was a woodland or forest they could get to easily without using a car or other transport.

- **5%** of respondents had been consulted about plans for creating, managing or using woodlands in their area and **37%** would like to be consulted in future.

- Around **one quarter** (27%) of respondents reported that they or a family member had attended an organised learning activity or event associated with woodlands in the last 12 months.

- **6%** of respondents were involved in volunteer work or community-based woodland groups in the past 12 months.

- Around **one half** of respondents recognised the FSC logo on wood products.

On **tree health**:

- **90%** agree or strongly agree that ‘action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases’.

- Around **two thirds** agree or strongly agree that ‘everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases’ and ‘would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to [them]’.

- **14%** of respondents use wood as a fuel, most commonly in the form of wood logs.

- Around **one third** of respondents reported having a disability or health problem. Of these, almost **one half** say that it affects their use of woodlands/forests or other green spaces. Benefits and disadvantages of woodlands

The survey asked respondents two questions about the benefits and disadvantages of nearby woodlands for the local community.

Benefits of woodlands

Most respondents to the 2015 survey (94%) believed the woodlands near them provide at least one benefit for the local community (Table 1).

As in previous years, the most commonly selected benefits in 2015 were ‘they provide places for wildlife to live’ (70%), ‘they provide places for recreation (such as walking, cycling, horse-riding)’ (61%) and ‘they improve the landscape’ (56%).

Table 1: Benefits of woodlands for the local community

| Benefit | 2005 | 2009 | 2011 | 2013 | 2015 | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | They provide places for wildlife to live | 64 | 81 | 67 | 62 | 70 | | They provide places for recreation | 52 | 72 | 63 | 58 | 61 | | They improve the landscape | 54 | 71 | 57 | 55 | 56 | | They provide places for relaxation and stress relief | 42 | 61 | 50 | 46 | 49 | | They remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, slowing climate change| .. | 51 | 37 | 36 | 49 | | They can be used by local schools/ educational groups | 46 | 56 | 43 | 39 | 41 | | They help attract visitors to the area | 44 | 54 | 40 | 40 | 37 | | They are accessible to all in the community | 35 | 54 | 39 | 38 | 35 | | They help reduce air and noise pollution | 32 | 45 | 31 | 29 | 28 | | They are an important resource for us all | .. | .. | .. | .. | 28 | | They help soak up water in rainy weather | .. | .. | .. | .. | 27 | | They support the local economy | 20 | 26 | 19 | 19 | 20 | | They give people in the community the opportunity to work together | 20 | 26 | 17 | 18 | 18 | | They provide firewood/ wood as a renewable fuel | 18 | 32 | 23 | 21 | 14 | | They create pleasant settings for developments around the community | 27 | 42 | 32 | 31 | .. | | They are just a benefit of knowing they are there | 24 | 41 | 27 | 26 | .. | | Other | .. | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | | At least one benefit identified | 88 | 98 | 96 | 94 | 94 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents: 2005 (1,001), 2009 (1,002), 2011 (1,002), 2013 (1,012), 2015 (1,022).
2. Respondents could select more than one benefit.
3. There have been some changes to the wording of the question and the response options over time.
4. .. denotes data not available (option not included in that year’s survey). Disadvantages of woodlands

Around two fifths of respondents to the 2015 survey (38%) believed that there was at least one woodland-related issue that disadvantaged the local community (Table 2).

As in previous years, the most commonly identified disadvantages in 2015 were that ‘woodlands near us provide a place for criminal activity’ (12%) and ‘we can’t control what happens in our local woodlands’ (12%).

Table 2: Disadvantages of woodlands for the local community

| Disadvantage | Percent of respondents | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------| | Woodlands near us provide a place for criminal activity | 17 15 12 12 | | We can’t control what happens in our local woodlands | 11 11 8 12 | | Timber lorries make me feel unsafe walking/driving on the roads | 9 7 3 8 | | Timber lorries/visitors to woodlands make the roads busy | 8 7 3 7 | | Woodlands don’t provide local jobs - contractors from elsewhere are used | 8 9 7 6 | | It’s really difficult to get firewood from our local woodlands | 4 5 5 3 | | The woodlands near us can’t be accessed | 4 5 1 3 | | The woodlands near us aren’t nice places to visit | 3 4 2 2 | | Woodland operations and visitors create noise pollution | 3 2 1 2 | | Woodland operations create carbon dioxide making climate change worse | 2 1 1 2 | | Managing woodlands pollutes the air/water/soil | 2 1 1 2 | | The woodlands near us aren’t good for wildlife | 3 2 1 1 | | The woodlands get in the way of development around the community | 2 2 1 1 | | The woodlands make our landscape worse | 3 1 0 1 | | Other | 1 1 3 3 | | At least one reason | 43 42 39 38 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents: 2009 (1,002), 2011 (1,002), 2013 (1,012), 2015 (1,022).
2. Respondents could select more than one disadvantage. Benefits and disadvantages of street trees

Questions relating to the benefits and disadvantages of street trees for the local urban area were introduced for the 2013 survey and repeated in 2015.

Benefits of street trees

Around nine in ten respondents (91%) to the 2015 survey believed street trees provide at least one benefit for the local urban area (Table 3).

As in 2013, the most commonly selected benefits were ‘they make the area look more attractive’ (selected by 71% of respondents in 2015) and ‘they provide places for birds and wildlife to live’ (50%).

Table 3: Benefits of street trees for the local urban area

| Benefit | Percent of respondents | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------| | They make the area look more attractive | 62 71 | | They provide places for birds and wildlife to live | 43 50 | | They remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, slowing climate change | 28 31 | | They help people to feel more relaxed and calm | 25 30 | | Their shade helps to cool the area during summer | 24 30 | | They help reduce air and noise pollution | 23 20 | | They enhance the appeal and performance of shopping areas | 22 29 | | They offer a connection with the seasons and nature and act as natural classrooms | 20 29 | | They create pleasant places to meet and mix with people | 20 27 | | They help to soak up water in rainy weather | 21 24 | | They provide health benefits | 19 18 | | They are just a benefit knowing they are there | 19 15 | | They increase property values and inward investment into the community | 13 12 | | They produce useful by-products | 7 8 | | They help to improve road safety | 6 6 | | Other | 0 1 | | At least one reason | 88 91 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents: 2013 (1,012), 2015 (1,022).
2. Respondents could select more than one benefit. Disadvantages of street trees

Around three fifths of respondents (58%) to the 2015 survey selected at least one disadvantage of street trees from the response options provided (Table 4).

As in 2013, the most commonly selected disadvantages in 2015 were ‘falling leaves and branches make a mess and are a health and safety hazard’ (34%) and ‘street trees damage buildings and cause subsidence’ (18%).

Table 4: Disadvantages of street trees for the local urban area

| Disadvantage | Percent of respondents | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------| | Falling leaves and branches make a mess and are a health and safety hazard | 27 34 | | Street trees damage buildings and cause subsidence | 17 18 | | Trees hide views | 10 12 | | The trees are not properly looked after | .. 11 | | Street trees reduce light to nearby houses and buildings | 13 10 | | The trees make the roads less safe | .. 9 | | Trees cause interference to TV reception and effectiveness of solar panels | 7 6 | | Carrying out work to the trees causes disruption and mess | 6 6 | | We can't control what happens to the street trees | 7 5 | | Trees harbour pests | 4 5 | | Street trees in urban areas near us provide opportunities for criminal activity | 4 4 | | The trees get in the way of developments in or around the urban area | 1 3 | | The trees in the urban areas near us aren't good for wildlife | 1 2 | | The trees make the urban landscape worse | 1 1 | | Other | 2 1 | | At least one reason | 56 58 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents: 2013 (1,012), 2015 (1,022).
2. Respondents could select more than one disadvantage.
3. .. denotes data not available (option not included in that year’s survey). Woodland recreation

The 2015 survey asked respondents a number of questions about visits to woodland. This included whether the respondent had visited woodland, reasons for not visiting (if not), type of woodland visited, satisfaction, management of the woodland visited, frequency of visits, reasons for choosing to visit and access to woodland.

The wording of a number of these questions was modified in 2015, to focus on visits in the last 12 months (rather than the last few years) or on the most recent visit (rather than the woodland visited most often). As such, some of the results for 2015 are not directly comparable with figures from earlier surveys.

Proportion visiting woodland

Almost two thirds (64%) of respondents to the 2015 survey said that they had visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation in the last 12 months (Table 5). This is unchanged from the figure in 2013, when the survey asked about visits in the last few years.

Table 5: Visits to woodland in the last few years/ 12 months

| Year | Percent of respondents | |------|------------------------| | 2003 | 62 | | 2005 | 69 | | 2007 | 79 | | 2011 | 68 | | 2013 | 64 | | 2015 | 64 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents: 2003 (1,000), 2005 (1,001), 2007 (953), 2009 (1,002), 2011 (1,002), 2013 (1,012), 2015 (1,022).
2. Question wording changed in 2015, from asking about visits "in the last few years" to asking about visits "in the last 12 months". Reasons for not visiting woodlands

Respondents who had not visited woodland in the last 12 months were asked to state their main reasons for not doing so.

The most commonly stated reasons for not visiting were that the respondent was too busy/did not have enough time (32% in 2015), was not interested in visiting (21%) or had personal mobility reasons other than not having a car (18%) (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Main reasons for not visiting woodlands in the last 12 months

| Reason | Percent of Respondents | |---------------------------------------|------------------------| | I’m too busy/not enough time | 32 | | Not interested in visiting | 21 | | Other personal mobility reasons | 18 | | Don’t have a car | 13 | | Woods are too far away | 6 | | All other reasons | 22 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015.

Note:

1. Figures are based on respondents who had not visited woodlands (366).
2. Respondents could select more than one reason. Type of woodland visited

Respondents to the 2015 survey who had visited woodland or forests in the last 12 months were more likely to have visited woodlands in the countryside (64%) on their most recent visit than woodlands in and around towns (36%) (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Type of woodland visited

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015.

Note:

1. Figures are based on respondents who had visited woodlands (654).
2. This question previously asked about all woodlands visited, so results for 2015 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years. Satisfaction with woodland visited

Respondents who had visited woodland or forests in the last 12 months were asked for their views on the woodland or forest that they had visited most recently. Around nine in ten respondents (89%) in 2015 agreed (selected ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’) that they would visit again and a similar proportion (87%) agreed that they would recommend the woodland/forest to a friend or relative (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Level of satisfaction with most recently visited woodland

| | Percent of Respondents | |----------------------|------------------------| | I would visit again | 74% | | I would recommend to a friend or relative | 70% |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015.

Note:

1. Figures are based on respondents who had visited woodlands (654).
2. This question previously asked about the woodland visited most frequently, so results for 2015 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years. Management of woodlands visited

Respondents to the 2015 survey who had visited woodlands were asked to state who managed the woodland that they had visited most recently.

Around one fifth (21%) of respondents who had visited woodland or forests in the last 12 months reported that the woodland they had visited most recently was managed by the Forestry Commission and a further 4% cited Natural Resources Wales as the manager. One quarter (26%) stated that they did not know who managed the woodland (Figure 4).

Around one fifth (18%) gave other responses that were not included in the response options provided. Local councils or local authorities were the most frequently mentioned responses within this category.

Figure 4: Management of most recently visited woodland

| Management Type | Percent of Respondents | |----------------------------------------|------------------------| | Forestry Commission | 21 | | National Trust | 9 | | Woodland Trust | 7 | | Community managed woodland | 5 | | Natural Resources Wales | 4 | | Other | 18 | | None of the above | 9 | | Don't know | 26 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015.

Note:

1. Figures are based on respondents who had visited woodlands (654).
2. This question previously asked about the woodland visited most frequently, so results for 2015 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years. Reasons for choosing to visit woodlands

Respondents to the 2015 survey who had visited woodlands were asked what they thought was important to them in choosing to visit the woodland they had been to most recently.

The most important factors identified were the proximity of the woodland (55% of respondents who had visited woodland), ‘peace and quiet’ (52%) and ‘attractive scenery’ (51%) (Table 6).

Table 6: Reasons for choosing to visit woodlands

| Percent of respondents | 2015 | |------------------------|------| | It is in close/easy reach | 55 | | Peace and quiet | 52 | | Attractive scenery | 51 | | Good for exercise | 46 | | Wildlife | 44 | | Dogs are welcome | 43 | | A good place to unwind/de-stress | 41 | | No entrance charge | 36 | | Safe environment | 36 | | Clear and accessible tracks and paths | 34 | | Knowing that visitors are welcome there | 28 | | Knowing you can access gates/stiles with your group | 22 | | Clear signage - both welcoming and directional | 19 | | A variety of activities | 11 | | Opportunity to collect woodland produce (including firewood) | 4 | | Other | 1 | | None of the above | 1 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015.

Note:

1. Figures are based on respondents who had visited woodlands (654).
2. Respondents could select more than one reason.
3. This question previously asked all respondents about reasons to visit woodlands generally, so results for 2015 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years. Access to woodland

Around two thirds (64%) of respondents to the 2015 survey said there was a woodland or forest they could get to easily without using a car or other transport (Table 7).

Table 7: Access to woodland without the use of a car or other transport

| Year | Percent of respondents | |------|------------------------| | 2005 | 59 | | 2009 | 63 | | 2011 | 60 | | 2013 | 59 | | 2015 | 64 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents: 2005 (1,001), 2009 (1,002), 2011 (1,002), 2013 (1,012), 2015 (1,022).

Respondents who reported that they had access to woodlands without the use of a car or other transport were then asked to rate how safe and welcoming that woodland is. More than four in five (82%) gave a rating of good or better, while just 5% said that they did not feel safe or welcome (a rating of poor or very poor) (Figure 5).

Figure 5: How safe and welcoming is accessible woodland?

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015.

Note:

1. Figures are based on respondents who had access to woodlands without the use of transport (656). Community Engagement

Respondents were asked a set of questions relating to how they engage with woodland and forest issues through public consultation, learning activities and volunteer groups.

Public consultation

In the 2015 survey, 5% of respondents reported having been consulted about plans for creating, managing or using woodlands in their area (Table 8). Around four in ten respondents (37%) indicated that they would like to be consulted in the future.

Table 8: Public consultation about plans for woodlands

| Have you ever been consulted | 2005 | 2007 | 2009 | 2011 | 2013 | 2015 | |------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Would you like to be consulted in future | 19 | 43 | 32 | 27 | 28 | 37 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents: 2005 (1,001), 2007 (953), 2009 (1,002), 2011 (1,002), 2013 (1,012), 2015 (1,022).

Of those who said they had been consulted in the past, around two fifths felt they had influenced decisions about creating, managing or using woodlands in their area. Of those who said that they would like to be consulted in the future, around one half (54%) thought that they would be able to influence decisions. Organised Learning Activities

Respondents were asked whether they or any member of their family had attended any organised learning activities or events associated with woodlands in the last 12 months (Table 9).

In 2015, 27% of respondents said that they or a member of their family had attended at least one such event or activity, a significant increase from the results in previous years. This increase was driven by a rise in participation in school trips, from 11% reported in the 2013 survey to 18% in the 2015 survey.

7% of respondents to the 2015 survey reported that they or their families had attended a guided walk or talk, 4% had attended an organised tree planting event, 4% had attended an organised course or training event and 2% had attended some other type of organised learning activity.

Table 9: Woodland learning activities attended

| Percent of respondents | 2009 | 2011 | 2013 | 2015 | |------------------------|------|------|------|------| | School trip | 11 | 10 | 11 | 18 | | Guided walk or talk | 7 | 4 | 5 | 7 | | An organised tree planting event | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | | Organised course or training event | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | | Other organised event | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | | None of these | 81 | 83 | 82 | 73 | | At least one | 19 | 17 | 18 | 27 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents: 2009 (1,002), 2011 (1,002), 2013 (1,012), 2015 (1,022).
2. Respondents could select more than one option. Conservation and Volunteering

Respondents were asked if they had been involved in voluntary work in connection with woodlands in the last 12 months or if they were a member of a community group involved in conservation and/or management of local woodlands.

Overall, 6% of respondents to the 2015 survey said yes to one (or both) of these areas of involvement (Table 10). Individually, 5% said they had been involved in voluntary work in connection with woodland in the last 12 months and 3% said they were involved with a community group that is involved in the conservation and/or management of local woodlands.

Table 10: Involvement in voluntary work or community group

| Percent of respondents | 2009 | 2011 | 2013 | 2015 | |------------------------|------|------|------|------| | Involved in voluntary work | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | | Member of a community based woodland group | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | | Either (or both) of the above | 5 | 4 | 4 | 6 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents: 2009 (1,002), 2011 (1,002), 2013 (1,012), 2015 (1,022). Awareness of logos

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) are schemes that certify woodlands as well as wood and wood products originating from sustainably managed woodland. Each scheme has a logo, which is displayed on certified products.

HETAS is the official body recognised by government to approve biomass and solid fuel heating appliances, fuels and services, including the registration of competent installers and servicing businesses. HETAS has a logo, which is displayed on approved products.

In the 2015 survey, respondents were asked if they had seen the FSC, PEFC and HETAS logos on wood products. Around one half (52%) of respondents to the 2015 survey recognised the FSC logo, 10% had seen the PEFC logo and 6% reported having seen the HETAS logo (Table 11).

The level of recognition for the FSC logo increased significantly between 2005 and 2011 and is now around twice the level reported in 2005 (25%).

Table 11: Awareness of logos on wood products

| Year | FSC | PEFC | HETAS | |------|-----|------|-------| | 2005 | 25 | 12 | .. | | 2009 | 36 | 12 | .. | | 2011 | 47 | 15 | .. | | 2013 | 49 | 11 | .. | | 2015 | 52 | 10 | 6 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents: 2005 (1,001), 2009 (1,002), 2011 (1,002), 2013 (1,012), 2015 (1,022).
2. .. denotes data not available (option not included in that year’s survey). Tree health

A question relating to tree health was introduced for the 2013 survey and continued in 2015. Respondents were presented with a series of statements and asked to indicate their level of agreement (Table 12, Figure 6).

Table 12 shows that the majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that:

- ‘Action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases’ (90% in 2015);
- ‘Everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases’ (69% in 2015); and
- ‘I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to me’ (68% in 2015).

Conversely, few respondents agreed or strongly agreed that:

- ‘There is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging pests and diseases’ (27% in 2015);
- ‘I understand what is meant by biosecurity’ (28% in 2015).

Table 12: Tree health

| Statement | 2013 | 2015 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------| | Action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect | 81 | 90 | | trees from damaging pests and diseases | | | | Everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the | 66 | 69 | | spread of damaging tree pests and diseases | | | | I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and | 63 | 68 | | diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to | | | | me | | | | I understand what is meant by biosecurity | 26 | 28 | | There is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging | 21 | 27 | | tree pests and diseases | | |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents: 2013 (1,012), 2015 (1,022). Figure 6: Tree health

| Statement | Percent of respondents | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------| | Action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases | 47% Strongly Agree, 43% Agree, 5% Neither agree nor disagree | | Everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases | 28% Strongly Agree, 42% Agree, 14% Disagree, 10% Neither agree nor disagree | | I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to me | 27% Strongly Agree, 41% Agree, 12% Disagree, 10% Neither agree nor disagree | | I understand what is meant by biosecurity | 9% Strongly Agree, 19% Agree, 8% Disagree, 26% Neither agree nor disagree | | There is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases | 5% Strongly Agree, 23% Agree, 16% Disagree, 35% Neither agree nor disagree |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents (1,022). Wood as a fuel

In the 2015 survey, all respondents were asked a series of questions relating to the use of wood as a fuel in their home, either on its own or with other fuels.

The questions used in this survey were selected for consistency with a UK survey of domestic woodfuel use, run by the Department of Energy and Climate Change in early 2015. This has resulted in a number of changes to the wording of questions from those used in Public Opinion of Forestry surveys that were run in Wales between 2005 and 2011. Most of the results shown here are therefore not comparable with the results from earlier surveys.

Respondents were first asked about whether they used wood as a fuel in their home and, if so, the form of wood used (Table 13). The majority of respondents (86%) reported that they did not use wood for fuel. Of those that did, wood logs was the most commonly reported form used (12% of all respondents).

Table 13: Use of wood as a fuel in the home

| Form of wood used | Percent of respondents | |-----------------------------------|------------------------| | Wood logs | 12 | | Waste wood | 5 | | Foraged, gathered or found | 4 | | Wood briquettes/ heat logs | 2 | | Wood pellets | 1 | | Wood chips | 1 | | None of the above | 86 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents (1,022).
2. Respondents could select more than one form of wood used. Surveys in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 had previously asked about use of wood as a fuel in the home, without asking for more detail on the form of wood used. The 14% of respondents in the 2015 survey who reported that the use wood as a fuel is significantly higher than the figure from the 2007 survey, but is not significantly different from the results for other years (Figure 7).

**Figure 7: Use of wood as a fuel in the home**

| Year | Percent of Respondents | |------|------------------------| | 2005 | 11 | | 2007 | 6 | | 2009 | 14 | | 2011 | 11 | | 2013 | 14 | | 2015 | 14 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents: 2005 (1,001), 2007 (953), 2009 (1,002), 2011 (1,002), 2015 (1,022).
2. Questions on woodfuel were not included in the 2013 survey.

Respondents who said that they did not currently use wood as a fuel in their home were then asked whether they were likely to do so in the future. Three quarters (75%) reported that they did not wish to use wood for fuel in the future and a further 14% said that they would like to use wood for fuel but were unable to do so (Figure 8).

**Figure 8: Future use of woodfuel**

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents who do not use woodfuel (881). Respondents who currently use woodfuel or who would like to do so in future were asked about what attracted them to wood as a fuel (Figure 9). Issues related to cost were the most frequently identified (45% mentioned that woodfuel was cheaper than other fuels, 20% reported having access to a free source of wood and 14% mentioned control of heating costs as a factor).

**Figure 9: Attraction of using woodfuel**

| Attraction | Percent of Respondents | |------------------------------------------------|------------------------| | Cheaper than other fuels | 45% | | Have access to free source of wood | 20% | | Firewood around house looks attractive | 19% | | Environmental benefits | 15% | | Control of heating costs | 14% | | Reliable local supply | 9% | | Fuel security/ off grid heating | 7% | | Cutting and gathering firewood keeps me fit | 3% | | Other | 29% |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents who use woodfuel or would like to use woodfuel (292).

Finally, respondents who intend to use woodfuel in the next 2 years and those who would like to use woodfuel but are unable to do so were asked about the factors that were preventing them from using woodfuel. Renting the property and being unable to modify it (reported by around one third of respondents) was the most commonly cited reason, followed by not wishing to undertake major building work and being happy with current arrangements for cooking and heating (each mentioned by around one in ten respondents). Disabilities/ health problems

In the 2015 survey, all respondents were asked whether they had any disabilities or health problems.

Around one third of respondents reported that they had a disability or health problem, with mobility disability (16%) and physical disability (11%) most frequently identified (Table 14).

Table 14: Disabilities or health problems

| Disability/ health problem | 2015 | |----------------------------|------| | Mobility disability | 16 | | Physical disability | 11 | | Mental health problem | 7 | | Visual impairment | 6 | | Hearing impairment | 6 | | Other | 2 | | None of the above | 67 |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents (1,022).
2. Respondents could select more than one type of disability or health problem.

Almost one half of respondents with a disability or health problem (47%) reported that this affected their use of woodlands/ forests or other green spaces. Respondents whose disability or health problem affected their use of woodlands/forests or other green spaces were then asked to identify how their visit was affected (Figure 10). The most commonly identified factors were a lack of suitable paths around the woodland/forest or other green space (27%), a lack of accessible facilities (21%) and a lack of public transport to the woodland/forest or other green space (19%).

Almost one third (31%) gave other responses that were not included within the response options listed. Illness or age-related mobility problems were the most frequently mentioned responses within this category.

**Figure 10: How disability/health problem affects use of woodlands/forests or other green spaces**

| Factor | Percent of Respondents | |---------------------------------------------|------------------------| | Lack of suitable paths | 27% | | Lack of accessible facilities | 21% | | Lack of public transport | 19% | | Lack of information in a suitable format | 11% | | Concern that woods are not a safe place | 7% | | Lack of information to help inform a visit | 6% | | The cost of reaching the site | 5% | | Lack of information at the site | 3% | | Lack of suitable activities at the site | 3% | | Attitude of other visitors at the site | 2% | | Attitude of staff at the site | 1% | | Cost once at the site | 1% | | Other | 31% | | None | 16% |

Source: Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015.

Note:

1. Figures are based on all respondents who have a disability or health problem that affects their use of woodlands/forests or other green spaces (155).
2. Respondents could select more than one factor. Annex

Introduction

This annex provides background information on the statistics presented in this release. It covers the data sources and methodology used to produce the statistics, information on quality measures and on any revisions to historic data and links to further information.

Glossary

Biosecurity A set of precautions that aim to prevent the introduction and spread of harmful organisms. These may be pests, pathogens or invasive species.

Clustering A sampling technique where the entire population is divided into groups, or clusters, and a random sample of these clusters are selected. All (or a selection of) observations in the selected clusters are included in the sample. Cluster sampling is often used when a random sample would produce a list of subjects so widely scattered that surveying them would prove to be far too expensive.

Confidence interval An estimated range of values that is likely to include an unknown population parameter (i.e. a fixed value for the population as a whole). The confidence interval around an estimate is derived from the sample data, and is used to indicate the reliability of the estimate.

Design factor A factor applied in the calculation of confidence intervals to take account of the survey design (clustering, weighting, stratification) used in selecting the sample. A design factor of 1.5 is commonly assumed by Market Research companies for omnibus surveys of the population.

Forest In the United Kingdom, there is no formal definition of “forest”; the term is often used for large woodland areas (especially conifers) or for old Royal hunting preserves such as the New Forest or the Forest of Dean.

Forestry Commission (FC) The government department responsible for forestry matters in England, Scotland and (until March 2013) Wales. The Forestry Commission’s functions in Wales transferred to a new organisation, Natural Resources Wales, on 1 April 2013. The responsibility for forestry is devolved.

FSC Forest Stewardship Council.

Great Britain (GB) England, Wales and Scotland.

Natural Resources Wales (NRW) The organisation responsible for advising the Welsh Government on the environment, created on 1 April 2013. NRW is responsible for the functions previously carried out by the Environment Agency in Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales and Forestry Commission Wales.

**Quota sampling** A method of sampling where interviewers are each given a fixed number of subjects of specified type to interview.

**Statistical significance** A statistical assessment of whether observations reflect an actual pattern rather than just chance.

**Stratification** A sampling technique where the entire population is divided into groups, or strata, and a random sample is selected within each group. Stratified sampling is often used to ensure that sufficient numbers from each group are included in the overall sample, particularly where results are required for each group.

**United Kingdom (UK)** Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

**Weighting** A set of factors assigned to survey responses to ensure that the resulting weighted results are representative of the population as a whole.

**Welsh Government** The executive branch of the devolved government in Wales.

**Woodland** Land under stands of trees with a canopy cover of at least 20% (25% in Northern Ireland), or having the potential to achieve this, including integral open space, and including felled areas that are awaiting restocking.

**Data Sources and Methodology**

**Background**

The Forestry Commission has conducted biennial surveys of public attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues since 1995. The surveys have evolved since then as follows:

- In the initial surveys, a representative sample of 2,000 adults across Great Britain (GB) was surveyed;
- In 2001, with more interest in country-level results within GB, additional questions were asked of representative samples of 1,000 adults in each of Scotland and Wales;
- Information has also been collected for Northern Ireland in the past through UK wide surveys in 2003 and the separate Northern Ireland surveys (1,000 adults) carried out in 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2014;
- In 2015 three separate surveys were carried out for the UK, for Scotland and for Wales. Some questions were asked in all three of the surveys conducted in 2015, but a number of questions have become survey-specific. The table below is a summary of the previous surveys and presents the approximate number of adults interviewed for each country. England results are a subset of the UK survey.

Table A1: Sample sizes for Public Opinion of Forestry surveys since 2001

| Year | UK¹ | England² | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | |------|-----|----------|-------|----------|------------------| | 2001 | 2,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | | | 2003 | 4,000 | 3,400 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | | 2005 | 4,000 | 3,400 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | | 2007 | 4,000 | 3,300 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | | 2009 | 2,000 | 1,700 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | | 2010 | | | | | 1,000 | | 2011 | 2,000 | 1,700 | 1,000 | 1,000 | | | 2013 | 2,000 | 1,600 | 1,000 | 1,000 | | | 2014 | | | | | 1,000 | | 2015 | 2,000 | 1,500 | 1,000 | 1,000 | |

Note:

1. 2001 and 2005 surveys covered Great Britain only (i.e. excluding Northern Ireland).
2. Results for England are derived from UK surveys.

Survey design

The 2015 survey results presented in this report are taken from the Beaufort Research Wales Omnibus Survey March 2015. The majority of the fieldwork for the March 2015 survey took place between 2nd and 15th March 2015, with a small number of interviews conducted in the following week. A total of 1,022 interviews were completed and analysed.

Previous surveys were also obtained from the Beaufort Research Wales Omnibus Survey.

Methodology

The Omnibus sample is designed to be representative of the adult population resident in Wales aged 16 and over. The unit of sampling is Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) and 69 interviewing points throughout Wales are selected with probability proportional to resident population, after stratification by Local Authority and Social Grade. A fresh sample of interviewing locations is selected each wave (i.e. each time the survey is run).

Within each sampling point, interlocking demographic quota controls of age and social class within sex are employed for the selection of respondents. Quotas are set to reflect the individual demographic profile of each selected point. A fresh sample of interviewing locations and individuals are selected for each survey and no more than one person per household is interviewed.

Interviews are conducted face to face in the homes of respondents utilising CAPI (Computer Aided Personal Interviewing) technology. Beaufort’s fieldworkers are used with postal and telephone back-checking in accordance with ISO 20252.

Questionnaire A copy of the 2015 questionnaire is provided at the end of this release. This covers the questions requested by the Forestry Commission. In addition, a small number of additional questions are included as standard in the omnibus surveys run by Market Research companies (e.g. gender, age, country/region) and some of these are also used in analysing the results from the survey.

Most questions are retained from one survey to the next, to enable comparisons over time. However, changes are sometimes made to reflect changing circumstances or priorities, or to improve the wording of questions. The following changes were made for the 2015 questionnaire:

- Questions about frequency of visiting woodland, purchase of wood products and religion have been dropped;
- New questions have been added on woodfuel use (Q11a-11d) and on disabilities or health problems (Q12a-12c);
- Amendments have been made to the wording of a number of questions and response options, for clarification. In particular, questions related to visits to woodland now ask about the most recent visit, rather than visits more generally.

Quality The data collected in the survey are weighted, to correct for imbalances between the profiles of the sample and the population and therefore ensure that the weighted results are representative of the Welsh adult population. For the 2015 survey, this weighting did not affect the total apparent number of respondents (1,022). However it has resulted in an increase in the apparent number of respondents who visited woodlands, from a total of 639 adults who were interviewed to a weighted total of 654. The results quoted in this report are based on weighted data.

All results are subject to the effects of chance in sampling, so a range of uncertainty (confidence interval) should be associated with any result from the survey. The confidence intervals take into account the effect of clustering, weighting and stratification in the survey design (see methodology, above, for more details) – this is known as a design factor and is commonly assumed to be around 1.5 for surveys of this type.

Confidence intervals are most commonly reported at the 95% level. This means that there is a 95% chance that the true population value lies within the confidence interval. The following provides a guide to interpreting the results in this report on the basis of a 95% confidence interval and assuming a design factor of 1.5: For questions asked in 2015 to the whole Welsh sample of 1,022, the range of uncertainty around any figure should be no more than ±4.6%.

For responses of subgroups, i.e. questions not posed to the whole sample of respondents, the range of uncertainty is correspondingly higher. For example the uncertainty for statistics asked only to those who visited woodland (639 respondents) should be no more than ±5.8%.

For questions asked to whole samples, differences of more than ±6.5% between the 2015 results and 2013 results are statistically significant.

For questions asked only to those who had visited woodland, differences of more than ±8.1% between the 2015 results and 2013 results are statistically significant.

Further quality information on FC Official Statistics is available at: www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-7zhk85

Revisions Figures for 2015 are published for the first time in this release.

All figures are final. Figures for earlier years have not been revised.

The Forestry Commission’s revisions policy sets out how revisions and errors to these statistics are dealt with, and can be found at: www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCrevisions.pdf/$FILE/FCrevisions.pdf.

Further information Accompanying tables to this release, available at www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-5zyl9w, provide more detailed figures, showing standard breakdowns.

Figures in tables have been independently rounded, so may not add to the totals shown.

Release schedule The Wales Public Opinion of Forestry is a biennial survey, next due to run in early 2017 with results likely to be available in summer 2017.

Official Statistics This is an Official Statistics publication. For more information about Official Statistics and the UK Statistics Authority visit www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk. Wales Public Opinion of Forestry Survey 2015: Questionnaire

Q1a [All] From this list, please tell me which of the following benefits you think that woodlands near you provide for the local community?

- They support the local economy
- They help attract visitors to the area
- They provide firewood
- They are accessible to all in the community
- They provide places for wildlife to live
- They provide places for recreation (such as walking, cycling, horse-riding)
- They provide places for relaxation and stress relief
- They improve the landscape
- They give people in the community the opportunity to work together
- They help reduce air and noise pollution
- They remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, slowing climate change
- They can be used by local schools and other educational groups
- They are an important resource for us all
- They help soak up water in rainy weather
- Other (please specify)
- None of the above

Q1b [All] From this list, please tell me which of the following woodland-related issues disadvantages your local community?

- Woodlands don’t provide local jobs – contractors from elsewhere are used
- It’s really difficult to get firewood from our local woodlands
- The woodlands near us can’t be accessed
- The woodlands near us aren’t good for wildlife
- The woodlands near us aren’t nice places to visit
- The woodlands make our landscape worse
- The woodlands get in the way of developments around the community
- We can’t control what happens in our local woodlands
- Managing woodlands pollutes the air/water/soil
- Woodland operations and visitors create noise pollution
- Woodland operations create carbon dioxide making climate change worse
- Woodlands near us provide a place for criminal activity
- Timber lorries / visitors to woodlands make the roads busy
- Timber lorries make me feel unsafe walking/driving on the roads
- Other (please specify)
- None of the above Q2a [All] Thinking about the nearest urban area (town or city), what benefits do you think street trees in this urban area provide?

(Multi answer)

- They make the area look more attractive
- They help people to feel more relaxed and calm
- They provide health benefits
- They provide places for birds and wildlife to live
- They help reduce air and noise pollution
- They remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, slowing climate change
- They are just a benefit knowing they are there
- They help to improve road safety
- Their shade helps to cool the area during summer
- They increase property values and inward investment into the community
- They help to soak up water in rainy weather
- They offer a connection with the seasons and nature (and act as natural classrooms)
- They create pleasant places to meet and mix with people
- They produce useful by-products
- They enhance the appeal and performance of shopping areas
- Other (please specify)
- None of the above

Q2b [All] Thinking about the nearest urban area (town or city), what disadvantages do you think street trees in this urban area cause?

(Multi answer)

- The trees in the urban areas near us aren’t good for wildlife
- The trees make the urban landscape worse
- The trees get in the way of developments in or around the urban area
- We can’t control what happens to the street trees
- Carrying out work to the trees causes disruption and mess
- Street trees in urban areas near us provide opportunities for criminal activity and vandalism
- Street trees reduce light to nearby houses and buildings
- Falling leaves and branches make a mess and are a health and safety hazard
- Street trees damage buildings and cause subsidence
- Trees cause interference to TV reception and effectiveness of solar panels
- Trees hide views
- Trees harbour pests
- The trees are not properly looked after
- The trees make the roads less safe
- Other (please specify)
- None of the above Q3a [All] In the last 12 months, have you visited forests or woodlands for walks, picnics or other recreation?

(Single answer)

- Yes (Go to Q4a)
- No (Go to Q3b)

Q3b [Ask if answered no to Q3a] Which of the following, if any, are the main reasons for you not visiting woodland/forests more often or at all?

(Multi answer)

- Not interested in visiting more often
- Don’t have a car
- Lack of suitable public transport
- Other personal mobility reasons (difficulty in walking, unwell, etc.)
- Woods are too far away
- Lack of facilities (play areas, picnic areas, etc.)
- Lack of information about woods to visit
- Prefer other areas of countryside
- Concerns that woods are not safe
- Woodlands are badly maintained
- Cost of visiting
- Lack of confidence
- I’m too busy/ not enough time
- Other (please specify)
- None of the above

Q4a [Ask if answered yes to Q3a] Thinking about your most recent visit to woodland, did you visit woodlands in the countryside or woodlands in and around towns?

(Single answer)

- Woodlands in the countryside
- Woodlands in and around towns

Q4b [Ask if answered yes to Q3a] Thinking about your most recent visit to woodland, please use the card to tell me to what extent you agree with the following two statements. (1 strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 neither agree or disagree, 4 disagree, 5 strongly disagree)

- I would visit again.
- I would recommend it as a place to visit to a friend or a relative Q4c [Ask if answered yes to Q3a] Do you know who managed the woodland you visited on your most recent visit to woodland?

(Single answer)

- Forestry Commission
- Natural Resources Wales
- Woodland Trust
- National Trust
- Community Managed Woodland
- Other (please specify)
- None of the above

Q4d [All] Thinking about your most recent visit to woodland, which of the following are important to you when choosing that woodland to visit?

(Multi answer)

- It is in close/easy reach
- Knowing that visitors are welcome there
- Attractive scenery
- Wildlife
- Peace and quiet
- A good place to unwind/ de-stress
- Good for exercise
- Safe environment
- No entrance charge
- Clear signage - both welcoming & directional
- Clear and accessible tracks and paths
- A variety of activities
- Dogs are welcome
- Knowing you can access gates and stiles with your group (including pushchairs, dogs, wheelchairs or if you have a disability)
- Opportunity to collect woodland produce (including firewood)
- None of the above

Q5a [All] Is there a forest or woodland that you can get to easily without using a car or other transport?

(Single answer)

- Yes
- No Q5b [Ask if answered yes to Q5a] How would you rate that forest or woodland in terms of how safe and welcoming it feels?

(Single answer)

- Excellent
- Very good
- Good
- Fair
- Poor
- Very poor

Q6a [All] Have you ever been consulted about plans for creating, managing or using woodlands in your area?

(Single answer)

- Yes
- No

Q6b [Ask if answered yes to Q6a] Do you feel that you have influenced decisions about creating, managing or using woodlands in your area?

(Single answer)

- Yes
- No

Q6c [All] Would you like to be consulted in future about plans for creating, managing or using woodlands in your area?

(Single answer)

- Yes
- No

Q6d [Ask if answered yes to Q6c] Do you feel that you would be able to influence decisions about creating, managing or using woodlands in your area?

(Single answer)

- Yes

- No Q7 [All] Have you and/or anyone in your family attended any of the following organised learning activities or events to do with woodlands in the last 12 months?\
  (Multi answer)

- School trip

- Guided walk or talk

- Organised course or training event (such as dry stone walling, fencing, making bird boxes, woodland management)

- An organised tree planting event

- Other organised event (please specify)

- None of the above

Q8a [All] Have you been involved in voluntary work in connection with woodlands in the last 12 months (e.g. physical work in a wood, administration, fund raising, running a group)?\
(Single answer)

- Yes
- No

Q8b [All] Are you a member of any community groups that are involved in the conservation and/or management of local woodlands?\
(Single answer)

- Yes
- No

Q8c [Ask if answered yes to Q8b] What is the name of your group?

- (Record answer verbatim) Q9 [All] Have you ever seen any of these logos on wood products?\
  (Single answer)

FSC :

- Yes
- No

PEFC :

- Yes
- No

HETAS :

- Yes
- No

Q10 [All] I’m now going to read out a list of statements that other people have said about tree pests and diseases (e.g. insects, fungi and plants), and I would like you to tell me to what extent you agree with each one. (1 strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 neither agree or disagree, 4 disagree, 5 strongly disagree)

- Everyone should take action when visiting woodlands to help prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases (e.g. by washing shoes/ boots, bikes etc before and after their visit and by brushing soil & plant material from clothes)
- I would be willing to look out for and report sightings of pests and diseases on trees, if appropriate information and advice was available to me
- There is very little that anyone can do to prevent the spread of damaging tree pests and diseases
- Action should be taken by authorities and woodland managers to protect trees from damaging pests and diseases
- I understand what is meant by biosecurity

Q11a [All] Do you use any of the following types of wood fuel for heating your home, for cooking or for hot water, either on their own or with other fuels?\
(Multi answer)

- Wood logs
- Wood pellets
- Wood briquettes/ heat logs
- Waste wood e.g. waste and off-cuts from industrial, manufacturing, DIY or renovation work
- Foraged, gathered or found branch wood from felled or fallen trees
- Wood chips
- None of the above Q11b [Ask if answered none of the above to Q11a] Which of these statements best applies to you?\
  (Single answer)
- I intend to use wood as a fuel in the next two years (Go to Q11c)
- I would like to use wood fuel but am unable to do so (Go to Q11c)
- I do not wish to use wood (Go to Q12a)
- I’m undecided whether I intend to use wood fuel (Go to Q12a)

Q11c [Ask if answered use wood fuel (responses 1-6 at Q11a) or would like to use wood fuel (responses 1-2 at Q11b)] What attracts you to firewood use?\
(Multi answer)

- Cheaper than other fuels
- Environmental benefits
- Have access to a free source of wood
- Reliable local supply
- Control of heating costs
- Fuel security/ off grid heating
- Firewood around the house looks attractive
- Cutting and gathering firewood keeps me fit
- Other (please specify)

Q11d [Ask if would like to use wood fuel (responses 1-2 at Q11b)] What has prevented you from using firewood to date?\
(Multi answer)

- Renting property so unable to make modifications to home to use firewood

- Cost of firewood

- Don’t know where to get firewood

- No place to store firewood

- Too much manual work involved

- Don’t wish to do major building work

- Happy with the way I heat my home/ cook

- Other (please specify) Q12a [All] Do you consider yourself to have any of the following disabilities or health problems?

- Mobility disability

- Visual impairment

- Hearing impairment

- Mental health problem

- Physical disability

- Other (please specify)

- None of the above (Go to end)

Q12b [All with disability or health problem] Does your disability/ impairment affect your use of woodlands/ forests or other greenspaces?

- Yes (Go to Q12c)
- No (Go to end)

Q12c [Ask if answered yes to Q12b] In which of the following ways does your disability/ impairment affect your use of woodlands/ forests or other greenspaces?

- Lack of public transport to the woodland/ forest or other green space
- Lack of suitable paths around the woodland/ forest or other green space
- Lack of accessible facilities, e.g. toilets, cafe, visitor centre, etc
- Lack of suitable activities at the woodland/ forest or other green space
- Lack of information to help inform a visit to the woodland/ forest or other green space
- Lack of information at the woodland/ forest or other green space
- Lack of information in a suitable format for your disability
- Attitude of staff at the woodland/ forest or other green space
- Attitude of other visitors at the woodland/ forest or other green space
- The cost of reaching the woodland/ forest or other green space
- Cost once at the woodland/ forest or other green space
- Concern that woods are not a safe place
- Other (please specify)